Both Obama and McCain favored it. But somehow it got stopped. Meanwhile, the express train of the FISA amendments can't be stopped because the majority Democrats are too scared to stop it, even though they could simply not let it get to either floor.

I have no idea who won the 2006 election, but it certainly wasn't the American people.

For those of you who have forgotten, much of the U.S. attorney scandal involved the Justice Department political operatives seeking to have U.S. attorneys bring vote fraud cases just before the elections, and when there was insufficient evidence to convict, all of which actions were to be brought against Democratic candidates and officeholders. In other words, government officials were fired for not bringing prosecutions against Democrats.

And now Democrats are saying that there should be no prosecutions of Republicans involved in such shenanigans? The mind boggles.

The 2001 Mariners, who won 116 games, lost a game they led 14-2 (second time in major league history a team had blown a 12 run lead). They had taken most of their big bats out of the game by the time Cleveland began its comeback.

Lesson: play the game til the last out.

I grew up in the kind of neighborhood where your brand of Judaism mattered. I didn't get along with the folks who morphed into the "Israel-at-all-costs, AIPAC-stands-for-me, mine-enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend" folks then, and I don't know. But I'd be damned if I let their actions or positions define for me whether I remain a Jew. The Judaism I was raised in is better than them, and I'll fight for it, thank you.

I chuckled at the "Good Barack Obama" comment, because it hit exactly where I've been at. I'm not one who tries to turn Obama into the perfect non-politician; I can see the politician in him and I don't like a lot of where he's been since he clinched the nomination, and not just on FISA. He really had a chance to issue the challenge to McCain to make this election about issues instead of personalities, and the window of opportunity to do that has passed. Instead. we're getting a slightly better general election than we'd have had if Hillary were the nominee.

Someone will say you aren't a true believer.

We actually take our Presidential candidates as we find them, and the only ones we have to choose amongst are Obama and McCain (sorry, but the general election campaign for us ordinary folks began the day Obama clinched). If I picked Obama over Hillary by a close margin, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says to 'support' him.

In Washington State, where I live and practice law, the law is pretty clear that the value of an attorney general's opinion (official, published) is exactly nil. Which, when you think about it, is what it should be. Otherwise, the executive branch can--as Bush and his cohorts wish to--override both the express wish of the legislature, as either agreed to by the executive or by an overridden veto, expressed sufficiently emphatically that the Constitution says the executive's consent is unnecessary, and take away the judiciary's entire power to interpret the law in the particular instance.

You can imagine the back and forth: attorney general's opinion, followed by a judicial intepretation saying the attorney general is wrong, followed immediately by the attorney general coming up with another cockamamie theory, and on and on. The basic theory of the executive having this kind of power under the U.S. Constitution is a blatant misreading of both the words of the document and the notion of legislative power extant in 1787.

I'm still afraid that Obama is like Frodo at the Cracks of Doom as far as this power is concerned.

The right will hold Bush's feet to the fire (and would do far more to McCain, who isn't one of them) forever, but still vote for him, but Glenn can't disagree with Obama over an important policy without having to, what?, support Bob Barr? That's a straw man argument.

If you walk around any major U.S. city and most minor ones, you'll find statues to all kinds of obscure politicians and generals. No one has a clue who they are and no one can look them up on Bill James's lists. At least the kids of Chicago know who the hell Harold Baines was.

If they put up a statue of Jay Buhner at Safeco, we could all rub the bald head for good luck. It would be fun. But you know why they never will? Not because Bone wasn't a great Mariner, but because Bill Bavasi was his dead ringer.

I really wish the federal courts would take this term and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Presidents are elected by an electoral college, not by the people (and the people of North Dakota have significantly more say in that election than the people of California, on a per capita basis). Senators were originally selected by the legislatures of the respective states. A senator who resigns is initially replaced by the choice of the governor. Gerald Ford was a president voted into office by both houses of Congress. And judges of the federal courts are selected by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate. So which ones are "political branches"?

In my state, we elect judges. Therefore, we should have three political branches. Should our state judiciary thus be less deferential to the legislature and the governor than the federal courts are to Congress and the President?

The proper way to look at it is that the federal judiciary is, just like Congress and the President, selected in accordance with the terms of the Constitution. It is expressly given all the judicial power under the Constitution. It should exercise that power in accordance with the Constitution, without any deference to the so-called political branches based on some notion that they are closer to the people, because that is the choice the Constitution makes.